Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > Using the same data types allows at least to choose the appropriate
> > typedefs without caring about the underlying OS.
> It doesn't. It is unsafe to assume it in general and it's even more
> unsafe for MIPS where we have at least three C models and you do not know
> in advance which one will a person doing a build choose.
It's knowing the ABI vs. ABI + OS (or OS-specific ABI-variant, if you
want to call it different).
> > > What programmer's POV? Does a programmer write a program for MIPS? No,
> > > unless he writes a kernel or a libc. A normal programmer just codes a
> > > program in C for a *nix-type system and if he wants any portability, he
> > > needs to follow universal guidelines.
> > World isn't as perfect as you claim. And for non-broken code it's
> > nearly irrelevant if the 64 bit integer type is called "long" or
> > "long long".
> World isn't perfect, but it would be beneficial if at least we tried to
> keep it as good as we can.
I agree. And I believe in the "least surprise" principle, which means
we shouldn't deviate from widely known conventions without good reason.
I still don't see the advantage of a 64 bit long in n32.